Exploring The Relationships Among Metalearning, Cognitive Holding Power and English Writing Skills of Pre-Service Teachers in Egypt

International Journal of English Language
& Translation Studies

Journal homepage: http://www.eltsjournal.org
Exploring the Relationships among Metalearning, Cognitive Holding Power and English Writing
Skills of Pre-service Teachers in Egypt
[PP: 46-58]
Mohammed Abdelhady Abdelsamea

Department of Educational Psychology,
South Valley University, Qena, Egypt
DEP, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, USA
Mahsoub Abdelkader Eldowy
South Valley University,
Qena, Egypt
ARTICLE INFO
Article History
The paper received
on:
15/02/2014
Accepted after
peer-review on:
01/05/2014
Published on:
01/06/2014
Keywords:
Metalearning,
Cognitive holding
power,
English writing skills,
Pre-service teachers,
Egyptian EFL Learners
Abdelmonem Ahmed Eldardeer

South Valley University,
Qena, Egypt
Sashank Verma
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, USA
ABSTRACT
Although there are a number of studies on English writing skills, the relation
among metalearning, cognitive holding power and writing skills is not well
understood. Thus, this study investigated the relation among metalearning
capacity (high versus low) and cognitive holding power (CHP; first-order versus
second-order) in explaining the English Language writing skills of Egyptian preservice teachers. We constructed and validated new measures of metalearning
and English writing skills, and adapted an existing measure of CHP for use with
our Egyptian sample. Participants with high metalearning capacity demonstrated
better writing skills than those with low metalearning capacity. In addition,
participants with second-order CHP exhibited better writing skills than those with
first-order CHP. The two factors made independent contributions (i.e., did not
interact) because, we argue that metalearning operates at the level of the
individual learner whereas CHP is an attribute of the larger instructional
environment (as orchestrated by the teacher). These findings generalize and
extend our current understanding of the role of metalearning and CHP in
developing writing skills to a new population, and establish the utility of newly
developed and adapted instruments and adapted instruments. They also set the
stage for future interventions for developing better English writing skills in preservice teachers.
Suggested Citation:
Abdelsamea, M. A., Eldardeer, A. A., Eldowy, M. A. & Verma, S. (2014) Exploring the Relationships among
Metalearning, Cognitive Holding Power and English Writing Skills of Pre-service Teachers in Egypt. International
Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 2(2), 46-58 Retrieved from http://www.eltsjournal.org
IJ-ELTS
Volume: 2
Issue: 2
1. Introduction
The four language skills listening,
speaking, reading and writing cannot be
acquired through rote learning. Rather,
learners must be independent to master the
multiple requisite knowledge sources, and
must show initiative in applying this
knowledge to real life situations. A number
of constructs from cognitive and educational
psychology are clearly relevant, including
metacognition,
metamood,
metacomprehension, metamemory, selfregulated learning, metalearning and
cognitive holding power (Aksz, Bugay, &
Erdur-Baker, 2010; Biggs, 1987; FernandezBerrocal, Extremerra, & Ramos, 2004;
Fredrikson & Hoskins, 2007; Meyer &
Shanhan, 2004; Pintrich, Wolters, & Baxter,
2000; Sperling, Howard, Staley, & DuBois,
2004, Stevenson, 1998). However, relatively
little is known about the relation between the
latter two concepts, metalearning and
cognitive
holding
power,
and
the
development of writing skills. Here, we
consider this question in a cross-cultural
context, with a sample of Egyptian pre-service
teachers majoring in English.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Metalearning
A number of definitions of
metalearning have been proposed in the
literature. Biggs (1987: 75) first introduced
this term and defined it as the process by
which learners become aware of and exert
control over their own learning. In this view,
metalearning is a bi-dimensional concept that
consists of awareness and control. Echoing
part of this definition, Jackson (2003)
emphasizes the learners ability to be in
control of his learning.
Metalearning has also been equated
with the metacognitive processes relevant for
learning and studying that help learners be
April-June, 2014
aware of better strategies for specific

educational situations, an awareness that is
necessary for achieving the best outcomes in
learning, for example, English language skills.
Focusing on the metacognitive dimension,
metalearning can also be defined as a critical,
reflective and selfevaluative process that
enables the learner to be aware of his or her
needs and the problems he or she
encounters to achieve learning outcomes
(Wisker, Robinson, Trafford, Lilly, &
Warnes, 2004). Focusing on the learning
dimension, Watkins, Carnell, Lodge,
Wagner, and Whalley (2001) define
metalearning as learning about learning.
Norton, Owens, and Clark (2004) combine
both metacognition and learning in their
definition of metalearning as the process by
which the learner monitors his learning
process and consequently relates it to his
mental abilities.
Jackson (2003, 2004), in reviewing
and summarizing multiple definitions of
metalearning, proposes that it is a
multidimensional construct: it is a product
(cognition), a process (a thinking method
related to new ways for learning), and an
attitude (a way of engaging learning
situations). Robinson (2007) described
metalearning as consisting of five dimensions:
metaconative (motivation), metacognitive
(thinking),
meta-affective
(feeling),
metaspiritual (inspiration)
and metakinesthetic (body connection).
In this
view/sense, metalearning includes being
aware of the effect of awareness, control,
thinking, motivation, feeling and inspiration
on language learning outcomes.
A number of studies have found that
metalearning has a positive effect on student
learning outcomes, i.e., it is highly related to
achievement. For instance, Watkins et al.
(2001) concluded that metalearning is more
related to possessing a learning-orientation
Cite this article as: Abdelsamea, M. A., Eldardeer, A. A., Eldowy, M. A. & Verma, S. (2014) Exploring the
Relationships among Metalearning, Cognitive Holding Power and English Writing Skills of Pre-service Teachers in
Egypt. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 2(2), 46-58
Retrieved from
http://www.eltsjournal.org
Page | 47
IJ-ELTS
Volume: 2
Issue: 2
than a performance-orientation. Students

who are learning-oriented have a wide range
of learning strategies and employ them
effectively and appropriately given the nature
of learning tasks. In other words, students
who engage in metalearning educational
activities become more aware of selecting
better learning strategies for their learning.
Metalearning is also related to deep
approaches to learning. Evans, Riby, and
Fibiger (2003) described students with deep
approaches to learning as concentrating fully
on the learning task and relating the new
learned information to their prior knowledge,
resulting
in
integrated
information.
Furthermore, Wisker et al. (2004) argued
that metalearning is associated with expert
learners in that it enables them to be aware of
different learning strategies and how they fit
(or do not fit) the intended learning
outcomes. Carneiiro (2007) argued that
metalearning helps learners organize
different sources of information, a
requirement for effective learning.
To summarize, there is broad
support in the literature that metalearning is
important for successful study. By contrast, a
smaller number of studies have investigated
the relation between metalearning and writing
skills.
Robinson (2007) found that
metalearning is highly related to the creative
writing skills of students. Ward and Meyer
(2010) investigated metalearning in the
United Kingdom among Commerce students
via their written profiles. They found that the
profiles of students with high metalearning
capacity were better organized than those of
students with low metalearning capacity,
consistent with Carneiiro (2007). Wisker et
al. (2004) studied metalearning in doctoral
students, which is presumably important for
conducting independent research. The
results indicated that those who benefited
more from metalearning training were able to
April-June, 2014
finish their dissertations earlier than those

who benefitted less. This small number of
studies suggests that metalearning may be
important for writing skills. However, the
question of whether metalearning is
important for developing English writing
skills in non-native people remains open.
2.2 Cognitive Holding Power
Learning does not occur in a vacuum;
learning environments have a great effect on
students learning outcomes. A number of
studies have investigated the characteristics of
supportive learning environments, the
cognitive
structures,
cognitive
representations, and learning styles, learning
approaches
they
support
(Blasing,
Tenebaum, & Schock, 2009; Dincer,
Yesilyurt, & Takkac, 2012; Psaltou-Joycey &
Kantaridou, 2011; Richardson, 2011;
Stevenson & Evan, 1994). In addition,
Stevenson, Mckavagh, and Evans (1994)
argued that learning environments press
learners to engage in different levels of
thinking and cognitive activities, which they
call cognitive holding power (CHP).
Stevenson and Evans (1994) defined
two types of press that learning environments
exert on students: to engage in first-order or
second-order cognitive procedures. Firstorder CHP is defined as pressing students to
engage in specific routine procedures.
Second-order CHP is defined as pressing
students to use open-ended, non-routine
procedures such as problem solving and
interpretation of new situations. First-order
CHP presses learners to be inactive learners
or instructions executors; it is teacher-led. By
contrast, Second-order CHP encourages
students to be active learners, responsible for
their own learning, and to be problem-solvers
and information-producers; it is studentcentered.
Walmesly (2003) argued that CHP is
related to whether learning environments
Retrieved from
Page | 48
IJ-ELTS
Volume: 2
Issue: 2
produce positive or negative learning

outcomes. Different learning environments
press students to engage in different types of
cognitive activities (Xin, 2008) and to utilize
different levels of procedural knowledge (Xin
& Zhang, 2009).
Stevenson
and
Evans
(1994)
described the different characteristics of firstand second-order CHP (see Table 1).
Generally speaking, first-order CHP is
related to simple outcomes that only require
following instructions and lower levels of
thinking and effort. By contrast, second-order
CHP is related to complex outcomes that
require higher levels of thinking and effort:
experimentation, problem solving, and so on.
As this distinction makes clear, it is vitally
important to study second-order CHP.
A number of studies have found that
second-order CHP has a positive effect on
student learning outcomes. Stevenson and
McKavagh (1991) argued that it is more
important for practical classes than for
theoretical classes because the former
require students to engage in active learning:
to be energetic, to show initiative and to be
interactive. Stevenson et al. (1994)
investigated the relation between study
experiences and teachers actions on CHP in
practical classes in Australia. They found a
positive relation between first-order CHP and
teachers initiation, and second-order CHP
and students initiation and cooperative work.
More recent research has found that the
benefits of second-order CHP learning
environments are not limited to practical
classes, and extend also to theoretical classes.
For example, Xin (2008) found that secondorder CHP is a better predictor of math
performance than first-order CHP.
To summarize, learners with secondorder CHP show more initiative, and are
more interactive and problem solvers than
those with first-order CHP. This has been
April-June, 2014
shown for practical subjects and for

mathematics. However, the question of
whether learning environments should have
high levels of second-order CHP for
developing English Language writing skills
remains open.
2.3 Writing Skills
In Egypt, English is taught as a foreign
language (FL). Writing is a particularly
important language skill when there is no
direct contact between native and non-native
speakers. We propose that second-order
CHP facilitates mastery of foreign language
skills. Consistent with this proposal, Pu
(2009) suggested that learners should be
independent when learning FL that is, they
should display second-order CHP. They
should also display metalearning, selecting
the best strategy for planning and controlling
their learning, a point we return to below.
Researchers have proposed different
definitions of writing skills in English. Jeffery
and Archibald (2000) defined writing skill as
a compound activity and a multifaceted skill
requiring proficiency in many other skills.
Learners views about writing and the
required cognitive processes involved vary at
different stages (Scheuer, Cruz, Pozo, Hurd,
& Solo, 2006). Writing skill can also be
defined as written expression about feelings
and ideas that requires practice and
deduction (Kirmiz, 2009). Gowda (2010:
139) emphasized that writing is a mean of
effective communication and meaning
exploration of individuals. Writing skill can
be defined more pragmatically, as a means of
linguistic communication by which we
identify others attitudes, opinions and
feelings.
Numerous researchers have asserted
the importance of writing skills in English
and emphasized their role in mastering the
other language skills: listening, speaking, and
reading (Peuteh, Rahamat, & Karim, 2010).
Retrieved from
Page | 49
IJ-ELTS
Volume: 2
Issue: 2
For this reason, there has been a special

emphasis on the factors affecting leaning and
teaching writing skills. For instance, Moustafa
(2002) stated that writing plays an effective
role in our personal and professional life as it
is a continuous process of conveying ideas
and feelings of people. Writing is important
for learning scientific skills: students with
better writing skills were better able to learn
scientific concepts than students with worse
writing skills (Klein, Crmini, & Williams,
2007).
Kirkpatrick and Klein (2009) noted
that writing is integral to all of education. Not
surprisingly,
many
researchers
have
developed programs for fostering writing
skills in different grade levels and across
different cultures (Abdel Gawad, 2003;
Abdel Hai, 2009; Isisag, 2010; Jackson, 2005;
Jalaluddin, Yunus, & Yamat, 2011; Jones,
Reutzel, & Frago, 2010; Mohammed, 2000;
Kutlu, 2013; Paz & Felton, 2010; Pirtchard &
Nasr, 2004; White & Bruning, 2005).
Of particular relevance to the current
study are studies investigating writing skill
assessment standards in English for preservice teachers. Fox and Allen (1983: 231232) noted that writing skills assessment
standards include organization, coherence,
accuracy of selecting words and expressions,
audience, format, punctuation, spelling, and
revision. McDonough and Shaw (1993: 186)
additionally include structure, grammar,
content and purpose. Henry (2008: 16)
argued that writing standards should also
cover topic, purpose and audience.
With regard to assessing writing skills,
some researchers have proposed that we can
assess writing skills objectively via
performance-based assessment, portfolio,
rubrics, computer-based assessment and
curriculum-based measures (Beyreli & Ari,
2009; Horn, 2009). For example, Romeo
(2008) proposed that skillful writers use their
April-June, 2014
knowledge to write organized content, and

plan their writing; they use writing strategies
effectively; they care about ideas of writing an
about feedback; they proofread and assess
their writing continuously; and they write
independently. In other words, they
approach writing as a process (drafting,
writing and proofreading) rather than a
product. The process approach focuses on
the role of students in the different stages of
writing and on their active participation in the
writing process (second-order CHP). By
contrast, the product approach focuses on
the role of teachers in the final product of
writing and casts students only as receivers of
information this is (first-order CHP).
3. The Current Study
Most of the studies of metalearning,
cognitive holding power and writing skills
reviewed above were conducted in different
countries such as Libya and Japan. No prior
study has investigated the relation between
metalearning, cognitive holding power and
the writing skills, and no study has focused
on Egyptian pre-service teachers majoring in
English. The current study fills these gaps. Its
purpose is to investigate whether individual
differences in the English writing skills of this
population are driven by differences in
metalearning capacity (high vs. low),
differences in CHP (first-order CHP vs.
second-order CHP), or some combination of
these factors.
3.1 Participants
The participants were 134 fourth-year
undergraduate students (44 male, 90 female)
drawn from the Qena, Aswan, and Sohag
Faculties of Education, South Valley
University, Egypt. The mean age was 20.80
years (SD = 0.45 years, range = 20-22 years).
All participants took part in the study
voluntarily.
3.2 Measures
Retrieved from
Page | 50
IJ-ELTS
Volume: 2
Issue: 2
3.2.1 Metalearning Scale

We developed a new metalearning
scale based on the theories of this construct
reviewed above. It consists of five subscales
totaling 68 items: 15 for awareness (e.g., I
overview the content of a text to be aware of
the points included.), 11 for control (e.g., I
review my writing regularly to make sure of
the points covered.), 17 for metacognition
(e.g., I ask myself different questions while
writing an essay.), 16 for meta motivation:
being aware of the role of motivation, e.g.,
Motivation is important to write difficult
essays.) and 9 for meta-affective: the role of
feelings in writing, e.g., My feelings affects me
in writing an essay.). Each item was a
statement that participants rated on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from totally applicable
for me to totally inapplicable for me. Item
and scale psychometrics were calculated.
With respect to reliability, the reliability
coefficient (Cronbachs alpha) for the
subscales and the total scale ranged from
0.673 to 0.897. With respect to validity,
criterion related validity was calculated using
an Arabic version of Biggs surface and deep
approaches of learning questionnaire. The
correlation coefficient was 0.883, which was
significant at the .01 level. The inter
correlations among the subscales, which
indexes their homogeneity, ranged from
0.514 to 0.777. We therefore conclude that
the
new
metalearning
scale
is
psychometrically adequate.
3.2.2 Cognitive Holding Power Scale
The cognitive holding power scale,
developed by Stevenson and Evans (1994)
(Translated by Khedr, 2003), was used to
measure the extent to which the learning
setting presses learners to engage in different
levels of thinking. It includes two subscales
totaling 30 items: 13 for first-order CHP (e.g.,
I let the teacher tell me what to do.) and 17
for second-order CHP (e.g., I feel I have to
April-June, 2014
try out new ideas.). Participants rated each

item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
always to never. Item and scale
psychometrics were calculated. With regard
to reliability, the reliability coefficient
(Cronbachs alpha) for the first-order CHP
was 0.743 and for second-order CHP was
0.825. With regard to validity, the inter
correlations among the items and the
subscales ranged from 0.232 to 0.635. This
confirms the psychometric adequacy of this
scale of our Egyptian sample.
3.2.3 Writing Skills Test
We developed a new measure of
writing skills in three steps. First, we prepared
a new writing skills checklist based on a
review of literature (Abdelmaksoud, 2007;
Abdel-Aziz, 2008; Ahmed, 2002; Ali, 2008;
Amen, 2008; Enos, 2009; Ibrahim, 2009;
Mohammed, 2008; Mohammed, 2000) and
the Egyptian National Standards Document
for Faculties of Education Accreditation
(2010). The checklist was sent to faculty
members of the Teaching English Foreign
Language (TEFL) program to check the
content. 90 % of the faculty members agreed
on the content. The checklist consisted of six
main skills (content, purpose and audience,
organization and unity, words and
expressions choice, syntax and grammar, and
mechanics of writing) and twelve sub skills in
its final form. For instance, student teachers
should be able to:
1) Write concisely and write content closely
related to the thesis statement and the topic
sentences.
2) Determine the audience and/ or the
purpose (e.g., to entertain, to inform, to
communicate, to persuade, to explain) of an
intended writing piece.
3) Use the language effectively to convey the
purpose of a text to a certain audience.
Retrieved from
Page | 51
IJ-ELTS
Volume: 2
Issue: 2
4) Produce a well -organized piece of writing

divided into clear introduction, body and
conclusion.
5) Initiate and terminate paragraphs and/ or
essays accurately and smoothly with logically
sequenced ideas.
6) Use accurate expressions that convey the
meaning clearly.
7) Use grammatical rules correctly such as
tenses, pronouns, articles etc.
Second, we developed a rubric to
assess and score students writing objectively
and in accordance with standards-based
assessment. It consists of six main standards
assessing the six main skills involved in the
checklist, with five indicators for each main
skill ranging from a high score of 5 to a low
score of 1.
Finally, we constructed a novel writing
test to cover the writing sub skills specified by
the checklist. It consisted of three topics. It
was sent to faculty members of the TEFL
program to check its content and
appropriateness for measuring the targeted
writing sub-skills. Again, 90% of the faculty
members endorsed the topics. The reliability
and validity of the writing test were
calculated. Two people scored each
participants writing skills using the rubric,
achieving good reliability (Cronbachs
alpha=0.939). Criterion related validity was
calculated using a standardized test for
measuring writing (Hinkel, 2007). The
correlation coefficient was 0.861, which was
significant at the .01 level. This confirms the
psychometric adequacy of the writing skills
test.
3.3 Procedures
We contacted the concerned
authorities (responsible officials) and sought
their permission in administering the
instruments.
They
distributed
the
instruments to the students in their various
classes and explained the purpose of the
April-June, 2014
study and how to complete the instruments.

Finally, we collected the responses and then
scored them.
3.4 Results
We used cut-off scores to select
participants for the four cells of our design
from our overall sample. For the
metalearning factor, participants who scored
one-half standard deviation above the mean
on the metalearning measure were defined as
having high metalearning capacity and those
who scored one-half deviation below the
mean were defined as having low
metalearning capacity. Thus, out of 134
participants, 42 were defined as having high
metalearning and 30 low metalearning (see
Table 2 in Appendices Section). We
proceeded differently for the CHP factor
because first- and second-order CHP are
associated with independent measures.
Participants who scored one-half standard
deviation above the mean on the first-order
CHP measure were defined as having firstorder CHP, and analogously for the secondorder CHP measure (see Table 2 in
Appendices Section). Using these cut-off
scores, we selected 72 participants with high
and low meta-learning and first- and second
order CHP for further analysis.
We conducted a two-way ANOVA
with between-subjects factors metalearning
(high versus low) and CHP (first-order CHP
vs. second-order CHP). The dependent
measure was performance on the writing
skills test [See Table 3 in Appendices Section
for the descriptive statistics for each cell of
the design]. There was a main effect of
metalearning [F(1, 68) = 32.103, p < .01],
with participants who were high on
metalearning capacity having better writing
skills than participants who were low on
metalearning capacity. This effect was large in
size [2 = .289]. There was also a main effect
of CHP, with participants demonstrating
Retrieved from
Page | 52
IJ-ELTS
Volume: 2
Issue: 2
second-order CHP having better writing skills

than those demonstrating first-order CHP
[F(1, 68) = 7.545, p < .01]. This effect was
medium in size [2 = .068]. The interaction
between metalearning and CHP was not
significant [F(1, 68) = 3.377, p > .05],
indicating that each factor made independent
contributions to writing skills.
4. Discussion and Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to
investigate individual differences in the
English writing skills of Egyptian pre-service
teachers majoring in English. The first major
finding was that, as predicted, participants
with
high
metalearning
capacity
demonstrated better writing skills than those
with low metalearning capacity. This finding
is consistent with the prior literature.
Metalearning is a multi dimensional construct
composed
of
awareness,
control,
metacognition, motivation, and feeling.
Skillful writing requires theses capacities.
Previous research shows that learners who
are metacognitively aware during writing
select better, more-task, appropriate learning
strategies (Sheorey & Mokkhtar, 2001). Lewis
(2002: 19-20) proposes that readers with high
metalearning capacity ask themselves
questions to measure their progress in
writing, as well as re-arrange the authors
ideas with their own words for better
outcomes. Furthermore, the awareness,
motivation, and control components of
metalearning, play a vital role in helping
readers master the basic skills required for
writing (Alves & Castro, 2009; Fildalgo &
Tolranse, 2008; Gregg, 2011; Withrow,
2004: 33). In addition, positive feelings have
a great effect on writing skills. Additionally,
Manoli and Papadopoulou (2012) asserted
the role of awareness in writing and
comprehending a text. Robinson (2007)
emphasized that high metalearning capacity is
April-June, 2014
related to creative writing skills. As

Kucukoglu (2013) summarized Research
shows good writers are actively involved with
the text, and they are aware of the processes
they use to understand what they read (p.
710). In this view, reading affects their
writing.
The finding that high metalearning is
associated with better writing skills
generalizes prior research in two ways. First,
it establishes the importance of metalearning
for a new population, Egyptian pre-service
teachers majoring in English. Second, it
opens the door for future intervention
studies. One prediction is that providing
explicit metalearning training to this
population should improve their writing
skills. More informally, these instructors may
want to tailor their instruction to more
heavily emphasize the metalearning that is an
integral part of the developing writing skills.
The second major finding was that, as
predicted, participants with second-order
CHP demonstrated better writing skills than
those with first-order CHP. This finding is
also consistent with previous research. Recall
that learners with second-order CHP are
characterized by initiation, participation and
information generation (Stevenson, 1998;
Stevenson & Mckavagh 2002; Tapia &
Pardo, 2006). There are many reasons why
second-order CHP should be associated with
better writing skills. Compared to students
having first-order CHP, students having
second-order CHP have higher performance
in their classes (Soler, 2002). Brown (2005)
asserted that learners self activities and
teachers encouragement affect writing skills.
Wette (2010) noted that learners
independence and practice improve writing
skills and this is the reason behind adopting
practice-oriented approach. Gibson (2011)
argued that positive learning environments
enhance self orientation towards learning and
Retrieved from
Page | 53
IJ-ELTS
Volume: 2
Issue: 2
consequently better writing skills. Moreover,

second-order CHP is related to rich learning
contexts (Buckley, Gravey, & McGrath,
2011).
Additionally,
Manoli
and
Papadopoulou (2012) asserted the role of
awareness in writing and comprehending a
text.
The current finding, that secondorder CHP is associated with better writing
skills, generalizes prior findings to a new
population, Egyptian pre-service teachers
majoring in English. It also sets the stage for
future intervention research. One goal would
be to design learning environments for
teaching writing skills that call for second but
not first-order CHP that are studentcentered rather than teacher-centered, and
that provide the freedom for students to take
initiative in their own learning.
Metalearning and CHP made
independent contributions to writing skills.
We interpret the absence of an interaction as
follows. Metalearning is a property of
individual learners. By contrast, cognitive
holding power is an attribute of the larger
instructional
environment,
which
is
orchestrated by the teacher. These factors
operate at different levels that of the
individual and that of the environment. Of
course, it is always difficult to interpret a null
finding. For example, it is also possible that
our study lack statistical power, an
explanation that future research should
address.
More generally, it is imperative that
pre-service teachers majoring in English, who
will one day be responsible for teaching
English as a foreign language, develop strong
English writing skills. The results of this study
suggest that metalearning and second-order
CHP have important roles to play in this
process. They are predictors of which preservice teachers will go on to develop strong
English writing skills. They are also targets for
April-June, 2014
developing new training programs and

restructuring current learning environments.
This study has made several
contributions to aid in these efforts. We have
constructed and psychometrically validated a
new metalearning scale, which can be used to
measure learners awareness of motivation,
feeling, and metacognition during learning
tasks, especially those involving writing. We
have also constructed and psychometrically
validated a new writing skills test a writing
checklist, scoring rubric, and writing test, that
can be used for assessing writing skills of preservice teachers. Finally, we have adapted a
standard assessment of CHP for use with
Egyptian participants and established its
reliability and validity with this new
population. These instruments provide a
foundation for future research.
One limitation of the current study is
that it only covered one aspect of language,
writing skill. Future research should
investigate the relation, if any, between
metalearning and CHP on one hand and
each of the other language skills listening,
speaking, and reading on the other hand.
About the Authors:

Mohammed Abdelhady Abdelsamea serves as an
Assistant Lecturer with the Department of Educational
Psychology, South Valley University, Qena, 83523,
Egypt. At present he is a Visiting Scholar with the
Department of Educational Psychology, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, 55455, Minnesota, USA. His
areas of research interest include: English language
proficiency, factors affecting learning outcomes,
measurement instruments and education based
standards. He has participated in one national and two
international workshops and a conference.
Abdelmonem Ahmed Eldardeer is a professor of
Educational Psychology, Department of Educational
Psychology, South Valley University, Qena, 83523,
Egypt. His research focuses on educational
measurement, statistics and evaluation. He has
participated in many national conferences and
workshops. He is the author and co-author of more
than 20 manuscripts and 11 books in different topics
in educational psychology.
Retrieved from
Page | 54
IJ-ELTS
Volume: 2
Issue: 2
Mahsoub Abdelkader Eldowy is an associate Professor

of Educational Psychology, Department of
Educational Psychology, South Valley University,
Qena, 83523, Egypt. His research focuses on
educational measurement and evaluation. He attended
many national conferences and international
workshops. He is interested in quality assurance and
accreditation in higher education. He has published
around 11 manuscripts in different issues in
educational measurement and evaluation.
Sashank Varma is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Educational Psychology, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55455, USA. His
research focuses on language comprehension,
mathematical reasoning, and computational modeling
of complex cognition. He is also interested in the
implications of neuroscience research for education.
Works Cited
Abdel-Aziz, S. (2008). The effectiveness of proposed
English language enrichment activities in developing
the writing skill for first year secondary students
(Masters thesis). Faculty of Education, Tanta
University.
Abdel Gawad, N. (2003). Using school journalism for
developing some writing skills for secondary stage
students (Masters thesis). Faculty of Education,
Zagazig University.
Abdel Hai, E. (2009). The effect of using a training
program based on the whole language approach on
developing literacy skills of primary three in the
experimental language school in Aswan (Masters
thesis). Faculty of Education, Minia University.
Alves, R., & Castro, S. (2009). Cognitive processes in
writing during pause and Execution periods. European
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(5), 758-785.
Abdelmaksoud, M. (2007). The effectiveness of
dialogue writing in developing writing skills and
attitudes towards writing in English for secondary stage
students (Masters thesis). Faculty of Education,
Banha University.
Ahmed, H. (2002). The effect of the whole language
approach on developing the literacy skills among first
year English department students at the faculty of
education of Al-Azhar University (Masters thesis).
Faculty of Education, Al-Azhar University.
Aksz, I., Bugay, A., & Erdur-Baker, . (2010).
Turkish adaptation of the trait meta-mood scale.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2, 2642
2646.
Ali, R. (2008). The effectiveness of creative dramatics
strategy in developing EFL primary school students
April-June, 2014
writing skills (Masters thesis). Faculty of Education,
Zagazig University.
Amen, R. (2008). The effectiveness of using the
guided discovery method using pictures in developing
the writing skills of the primary school students
(Masters thesis). Institute of Educational Studies,
Cairo University.
Beyreli, L., & Ari, G. (2009). The use of analytic
rubric in the assessment of writing performance
inter- rater- concordance study. Educational Sciences:
Theory and Practice, 9(1), 105-125.
Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and
studying. Hawthorn: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Blasing, B., Tenebaum, G., & Schock, T. (2009). The
cognitive structure in movements in classical dance.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 350-360.
Brown, A. (2005). Self-assessment of writing in
independent language learning programs: The value of
annotated samples. Assessing Writing, 10, 174-191.
Buckley, P., Gravey, J., & McGrath, F. (2011). A case
study on using prediction markets as a rich
environment for active learning. Computers &
Education, 65, 418-428.
Carneiro, R. (2007). The Big picture: Understanding
learning and metalearning challenges. European
Journal of Education, 42(2), 151-172.
Dincer, A., Yesilyurt, S., & Takkac, M. (2012). The
effects of autonomy-supportive climate EFL learners
engagement, achievement and competence in English
speaking. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 46,
3890 3894.
Enos, M. (2009). Assessing writing and editing skills of
first-year college students enrolled in short-term
certificates and associate programs at the college of
technology, Idaho state university (Doctoral
dissertation). College of Technology, Idaho state
university.
Evans, C.; Riby, J., & Fibiger, L. (2003). Approaches
to learning, need for cognition and strategic flexibility
among university students. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 73, 507-528.
Fernandez-Berrocal, P., Extremerra, N., & Ramos, N.
(2004). Validity and reliability of the Spanish modified
version of the trait meta-mood scale. Psychological
Reports, 94, 751-755
Fidalgo, R., & Tolrance, M. (2008). The long term
effects of strategy-focused writing instruction for grade
six students. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
33, 672-693.
Fox, S., & Allen, V. (1983). The language arts: An
integrated approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Retrieved from
Page | 55
IJ-ELTS
Volume: 2
Issue: 2
Fredrikson, U. & Hoskins, B. (2007). The

development of learning to learn in a European
context. The curriculum Journal, 18(2), 127-134.
Gibson, S. H. (2011). How action learning coaches
foster a climate conducive to learning (Doctoral
dissertation). Fielding Graduate University.
Gowda, N. (2010). Learning and the learner: Insights
into the processes of learning and teaching. New
Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited.
Gregg, L. (2011). A methodology to evaluate the
effectiveness of educational components in Juvenile
detention facilities a link in transition back into the
community (Doctoral dissertation). Graduate SchoolNewark. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
Hinkel, E. (2007). TOEFL test strategies (3 rd ed.).
USA: Barrons.
Henry, D. (2008). Writing for life: Paragraph to essay.
New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Horn, B. (2009). Developing a computer assisted
writing assessment tool for discipline-specific writing
(Doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University.
Ibrahim, A. (2009). The effectiveness of a program
based on scaffolding writing strategies in developing
the writing skill of EFL second year preparatory
school students (Masters thesis). Faculty of Education,
Tanta University.
Isisag, K. U. (2010). The efficacy of macro-linguistics
in developing writing skills: an integrated lesson plan.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 698
703.
Jackson, N. (2003, August). Exploring the concept of
metalearning. Paper presented at Metalearning in
higher education: Taking account of the student
perspective, European Association for Research on
Learning and Instruction, 10th Biennial Conference,
Padova, Italy.
Jackson, N. (2004). Developing the concept of
metalearning. Innovation in Education and Teaching
International. 41(4), 391-403.
Jackson, N. E. (2005). Are university students
component writing skills related to their text
comprehension and academic achievement?. Learning
and Individual Differences, 15, 113-139.
Jalaluddin, I., Yunus, M., & Yamat, M. (2011).
Improving Malaysian rural learners writing skill: A
case study. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences
15, 18451851.
Jeffery, G., & Archibald, A. (2000). Second language
acquisition and writing: A multi-disciplinary approach.
Learning and Instruction, 10, 1-11.
Jones, C., Reutzel, D., & Fargo, J. (2010). Comparing
two methods of writing instruction: Effects on
April-June, 2014
kindergarten students reading skills. The Journal of
Educational Research, 103, 327-341.
Khedr, A. S. (2003). Cognitive holding bower scale.
Cairo: Egyptian Renaissance Printing House.
Kirkpatrick, L., & Klein, P. (2009). Planning text
structure as a way to improve students writing from
sources in the compare-contrast genre. Learning and
Instruction, 19, 309-321.
Kirmiz, F. (2009). The relationship between writing
achievement and the use of reading comprehension
strategies in the 4th and 5th grades of primary schools.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 230-234.
Klein, P., Crmini, S., & Williams, L. (2007). The role
of writing in learning from analogies. Learning and
Instruction, 17, 595-611.
Kucukoglu, H. (2013). Improving writing skills
through effective writing strategies. Procedia Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 709 714.
Kutlu, O. (2013). Using technology for developing
writing in an ESP class. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 70, 267271.
Lewis, J. (2002). Writing for academic success:
Writing and strategies. New York: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Manoli, P., & Papadopoulou, M. (2012). Reading
strategies versus reading skills: Two faces of the same
coin. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 46,
817821.
McDonough, J. & Shaw, C. (1993). Materials and
Methods in ELT: A Teachers guide. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Meyer, J. & Shanhan, M. (2004). Developing
metalearning capacity in students: Actionable theory
and practical lessons learned in first- year economics.
Innovation in Education and Teaching International.
41(4), 445-456.
Mohammed, A. (2008). The effect of the whole
language approach on developing English writing skills
for the first year secondary school students in Saudi
Arabia. (Doctoral dissertation). Institute of
Educational Studies, Cairo University.
Mohammed, S. (2000). Developing the writing skills
for the students of English at the faculty of arts AlFateh University, Libya (Doctoral dissertation). Faculty
of Education, Ain Shams University.
Moustafa, A. (2002). The effectiveness of a proposed
interactive process model in the writing performance,
self-efficacy and apprehension of ESP college
students. Mansoura Journal of Education, 49, 77-102.
National Agency for Quality Assurance and
Accreditation in Education (2010). Egyptian National
Standards Document for Faculties of Education
Accreditation. Ministry of Higher Education, Egypt.
Retrieved from
Page | 56
IJ-ELTS
Volume: 2
Issue: 2
Norton, L., Owens, T., & Clark, L. (2004). Analyzing

metalearning in first-year undergraduates through their
reflective discussions and writing. Innovation in
Education and Teaching International. 41(4), 423-441.
Paz, S., & Felton, M. (2010). Reading and writing from
multiple source documents in history: Effects of
strategy instruction with low to average high school
writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35,
174-197.
Peuteh, S., Rahamat, R., & Karim, A. (2010). Writing
in the second language: Support and help needed by
the low achievers. Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences,7, 580-587.
Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000).
Assessing metacognition and self regulated learning.
Issues in Measurement of Metacognition. Paper 3.
Retrieved
from
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/burosmetacognition/3.
Pirtchard, R., & Nasr, A. (2004). Improving reading
performance among Egyptian engineering students:
Principles and practice. English for Specific Purposes,
23, 425-445.
Psaltou-Joycey, A., & Kantaridou, Z. (2011). Major,
minor, and negative learning style preferences of
university students. System 39, 103-112.
Pu, M. (2009). An investigation of the relationship
between college Chinese EFL students autonomous
learning capacity and motivation in using computer
assisted language learning (Doctoral dissertation).
Faculty of the Graduate School, University of Kansas.
Richardson, J. T. (2011). Approaches to studying,
conceptions of learning and learning styles in higher
education. Learning and Individual Differences, 21,
288293.
Robinson, S. (2007) An Autobiography of the Creative
Writing Experience: How Metacognition in the Five
Metalearning Domains Informs Creative Writing
(Doctoral dissertation). Faculty of the Graduate
Studies, University of Calgary, Alberta.
Romeo, L. (2008). Informal writing assessment linked
to instruction: A continuous process for teachers,
students, and parents. Reading and Writing Quarterly,
24, 25-51.
Scheuer, N., Cruz, M., pozo, J., Hurd, M., & Solo, G.
(2006). The mind is not a black box: Children ideas
about the writing process. Learning and Instruction,
16, 72-85.
Sheorey, R., & Mokkhtar, K. (2001). Differences in
the metacognitive awareness of writing strategies
among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431449.
Soler, E. (2002). Relationship between teacher-led
versus learners interaction and the development of
April-June, 2014
pragmatics in the EFL classroom. International
Journal of Educational Research, 37, 359-377.
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & DuBois,
N. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning
constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation,
10(2), 117-139.
Stevenson, J. (1998). Performance of the cognitive
holding power in schools. Learning and Instruction.
8(5), 393-410.
Stevenson, J., & McKavagh, C. (1991). Cognitive
structures developed in TAFE classes. Paper
presented at the Conference of the Australian
Association for Research in Education.
Stevenson, J., & Evans, G (1994). Conceptualization
and measurement of cognitive holding power.
Learning and Instruction. 8(5), 393-410.
Stevenson, J. Mckavagh, C., & Evans, G. (1994).
Measuring the press for skill development. In J.
Stevenson (Ed): Cognition at work: The development
of vocational expertise (pp. 198-216). National Center
for Vocational Educational Research, Adelaide,
Australia.
Stevenson, J., & Mckavagh, C. (2002). Problem solving
cognitive activity in technical education classrooms.
Paper presented in a symposium on problem Solving
Cognitive Activity Changing minds, European
association For Research on Learning and Instruction
10th International Conference on Thinking,
Harrogate, England, 1-8.
Tapia, A., & Pardo, J. (2006). Assessment of learning
environment motivational quality from the point of
view of secondary and high school learners. Learning
and Instruction, 16, 295-309.
Walmsely, B. (2003). Partnership-centered learning:
the case for pedagogic balance in technology
education. Journal of Technology Education, 14(2),
56-69.
Ward, S., & Meyer, J. (2010). Metalearning capacity
and threshold concept engagement. Innovation in
Education and Teaching International. 47(4). 369-378.
Watkins, C., Carnell, E., lodge, C., Wagner, P., &
Whalley, C. (2001). Learning about Learning
enhances performance .Research Matters, 13, 1-8.
Wette, R. (2010). Evaluating student learning in a
university level EAP unit on writing using sources.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 158-177.
White, M., & Bruning, R. (2005). Implicit writing
beliefs and their relation to writing quality.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 166-189.
Wisker, G., Robinson, G., Trafford, T., Lilly, J., &
Warnes, M. (2004). Achieving a doctorate:
Metalearning research development programs
supporting success for international distance students.
Retrieved from
Page | 57
IJ-ELTS
Volume: 2
Issue: 2
Innovation in Education and Teaching International.

41(4), 474-489.
Withrow, J. (2004). Effective writing: Writing skills for
intermediate students of American English. 3rd ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Xin, Z. (2008). Fourth-Through Sixth-Grade Students
Representations of Area-of-Rectangle Problems:
Influences of Relational Complexity and Cognitive
Appendices:
Table :1 Characteristics of first-and second-order CHP
Characteristics
Press from
setting
Examples of
teacher
activities
Examples of
student
activities
Cognitive
activity
First-Order CHP
Presses students into following instructions or
procedures, provided by the teacher, e.g. copying,
doing as told, doing as shown, relying on the teacher
for ideas
Modeling practical tasks, telling,
providing information, generating
ideas, instructing, designing tasks
for student practice, showing
patterns and relationships, checking results
Performing as tasks demonstrated by the teacher,
following set of written or oral instructions, relying
on the teacher for new ideas and procedures,
executing plans provided by the teacher, relying on
the teacher for establishing connections and for
confirming results, passively accepting new
information and procedures, accepting results of
activities
Encoding new propositional

knowledge Encoding new specific procedures
April-June, 2014
Holding Power. The Journal of Psychology. 142(6),
581-600.
Xin, Z., & Zhang, L. (2009). Cognitive holding power,
fluid intelligence, and mathematical achievement as
predicators of childrens realistic problem solving.
Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 124-129.
Second-Order CHP
Presses students into working things out for themselves,
tackling problems, exploring, e.g. finding links, finding
out information, checking results, trying out ideas
Posing new and problematic tasks, encouraging students
to explore and tackle unfamiliar tasks and
situations, providing information as requested,
encouraging students to find patterns and relationships
and check their own results against existing knowledge
Interpreting new situations, making plans, solving new
problems, relating existing and new knowledge,
generating ideas, trying out new ideas and procedures,
checking the results of new procedures against existing
knowledge, monitoring own
activities
Use of second order procedures for making plans,
problem-solving and monitoring. Use of propositional
knowledge for Interpretation of problems, monitoring
new procedures, and
assessing progress toward goals. Active reconstruction of
propositional knowledge
Second order procedures operating
on specific procedures
Adapted from Stevenson and Evans (1994)

Table: 2 Descriptive statistics and cut-off score of the study sample
Variables
M
SD
Cut-Off
Score
Group
M + .5 SD
248.55
High
Metalearning
232.98
31.14
M .5 SD
217.41
Low
39.53
6.45
M + .5 SD
42.76
First-Order
CHP
53.76
10.35
M + .5 SD
58.94
Second-Order
Note. M refers to mean, SD refers to standard deviation, and n refers to the size of the sample subset.
Table: 3 Writing skills scores for each group
Metalearning
CHP
Low
High
First-Order
13.04 (2.849)
20.75 (0.957)
Second-Order
17.75 (5.560)
21.68 (2.384)
n
30
42
Note. Each cell mean is reported M (SD); n refers to the size of the sample subset
n
42
30
30
42
Total n
72
72
n
30
42
Retrieved from
Page | 58

Exploring The Relationships Among Metalearning, Cognitive Holding Power and English Writing Skills of Pre-Service Teachers in Egypt

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Exploring The Relationships Among Metalearning, Cognitive Holding Power and English Writing Skills of Pre-Service Teachers in Egypt

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

International Journal of English Language

& Translation Studies

Mohammed Abdelhady Abdelsamea

Abdelmonem Ahmed Eldardeer

aware of better strategies for specific

than a performance-orientation. Students

finish their dissertations earlier than those

produce positive or negative learning

shown for practical subjects and for

For this reason, there has been a special

knowledge to write organized content, and

3.2.1 Metalearning Scale

try out new ideas.). Participants rated each

4) Produce a well -organized piece of writing

study and how to complete the instruments.

second-order CHP having better writing skills

related to creative writing skills. As

consequently better writing skills. Moreover,

developing new training programs and

About the Authors:

Mahsoub Abdelkader Eldowy is an associate Professor

Fredrikson, U. & Hoskins, B. (2007). The

Norton, L., Owens, T., & Clark, L. (2004). Analyzing

Innovation in Education and Teaching International.

Encoding new propositional

Adapted from Stevenson and Evans (1994)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen